The Supreme Administrative Court rendered the 106-Pan-3 Decision of January 5, 2017 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that since an administrative agency’s determination and investigation of illegal buildings are governed by specific procedures and laws and regulations, whether an illegal building is reported and when such reporting is conducted are used to determine if the compensation criteria violate the principle of equality.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellant’s building at issue was subject to expropriation. After announcing a list of compensation for improvements to buildings, the Appellee found during the announcement period that since the building at issue was an illegal building which had been reported after December 25, 2010, no compensation and reward would be paid pursuant to law. Therefore, the original disposition was rendered to correct and reduce the compensation. Dissatisfied, the Appellant brought administrative action.
According to the Decision, in case of a building whose legality cannot be substantiated, an autonomous statute for compensation differentiates the criteria for any grant and reward for voluntary demolition and relocation into four circumstances: namely, buildings never reported illegal, illegal buildings which have been reported, illegal buildings reported prior to December 25, 2010, and illegal buildings not reported before the effective date of the autonomous statute for compensation. To wit, whether a building has been reported illegal and when such reporting took place serve as the determination criteria, which are not impeccable. However, illegal buildings do not fall within the scope of property protection. Therefore, it is still quite specific and clear that the payment of a reward or handling fee by the competent authority in the spirit of voluntary demolition and relocation is determined by illegality and the timing of reporting. Although the possibility of discriminatory treatments as a result of excessive reporting by an administrative agency is hardly avoidable, still an administrative agency typically does not wantonly report illegal buildings for the sake of fiscal saving. Therefore, the Appellee’s compensation criteria based on whether a building has been reported illegal and the timing of such reporting do not violate the principle of equality, the principle of prohibition against improper associations, and the principle of proportionality. Since the original decision upholding the original disposition was not erroneous, the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed.